DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2, and 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20080143061-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Steinbach’ in view of (US-20170229716-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Nonoyama’
Regarding Claim 1,
Steinbach teaches a method of securing a gasket with a bipolar plate comprising the steps of application and alignment of a first gasket foil on a second gasket foil (Steinbach, first gasket layer, 1011, Fig. 10)(Steinbach, second gasket layer, 1015, Fig. 10) having connecting recesses bonding the first gasket sheet to the second gasket sheet (Steinbach, “In one embodiment, a surface of the first gasket layer 411 and/or the second gasket layer 414 may include surface features such as microstructured features 416…The recessed version allows the microstructured features 416 to be taller, allowing for increased seal tolerance in the presence of inhomogeneities in plate thickness”, see [0068]) so that the gasket is formed (Steinbach, “The above subassembly is installed into a press and is molded (FIG. 10F) under heat and pressure, for example, about 25 to about 30 tons at about 60° C. to about 150° C., for about 2 to about 10 minutes, allowing the silicone to flow and the GIG to reach the desired thickness. The silicone is allowed to cure, forming the second gasket layer 1015”, see [0099]), placing the gasket on the bipolar plate so that the second gasket foil rests against the bipolar plate (Steinbach, flow field plates, 360, Fig, 3A) with the connection recesses performing an embossing step in which an embossing force is applied with an embossing tool in the region of the bonding recesses so that an embossed adhesive dot is formed via an adhesive disposed in the bonding recess on the first gasket sheet (Steinbach, “In some configurations, microstructured features are embossed on the surface of the second gasket layer and/or the first gasket layer during the molding process.”, see [0096]).
Steinbach is silent as to whether the embossed features bond the first gasket sheet to the bipolar plate first gasket sheet is bonded to the bipolar plate.
Nonoyama teaches features bond the first gasket sheet (Nonoyama, separators, 40, Fig. 5) to the bipolar plate first gasket sheet is bonded to the bipolar plate (Nonoyama, seal member, 20, Fig. 5).
Nonoyama teaches that this convex pattern prevents the reduction of the adhesive layer, preventing non-uniform thickness (Nonoyama, “Significant reduction of the thickness of the adhesive portion may cause various problems as described below. For example, this may cause a problem that the adhesive force between the opposed surfaces and the adhesive portions is reduced. In another example, part of the adhesive portion pressed by the opposed surface may be flowed away to the periphery and may cause a problem that the thickness of the fuel cell becomes non-uniform.”, see [0004])(Nonoyama, “This configuration causes the convex to bump into the core layer and thereby suppresses the first separator or the second separator from being further pressed toward the seal member. This reduces a pressing amount of the first separator or the second separator into the adhesive layer (first adhesive layer or second adhesive layer). This configuration accordingly reduces the possibility that the thickness of a region of the adhesive layer that adheres to the separator is significantly reduced, compared with a configuration that each opposed surface does not include a convex.”, see [0006])
Steinbach and Nonoyama are analogous as they are both of the same field of fuel cell plates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plate as taught in Steinbach to have the convex portions as taught in Nonoyama which connect directly to the plate, in order to maintain the thickness of the layers and avoid the negative effects of a non-uniform configuration.
Regarding Claim 2,
Modified Steinbach teaches the method of claim 1, characterized in that an adhesive is applied to at least the first gasket sheet prior to joining the first gasket sheet to the second gasket sheet (Steinbach, “The gasket includes a first gasket layer having an adhesive layer disposed on one surface. The gasket also includes a second gasket layer comprising a gasket material in contact with at least one surface of the first gasket layer”, see [0012]).
Regarding Claim 5,
Modified Steinbach teaches the method according to any one of the preceding claim 1 characterized in that the embossing force is applied to the first gasket foil (Steinbach, “In some configurations, microstructured features are embossed on the surface of the second gasket layer and/or the first gasket layer during the molding process.”, see [0096]).
Regarding Claim 6,
Modified Steinbach teaches the method according to claim 1, characterized in that with the embossing step, the embossing tool is heated so that a hot glue disposed in the bonding recess bonds to the bipolar plate (Steinbach, “The GDL, first gasket layer, and gasket material are placed in a mold and molded 930. The molding process forms a second gasket layer from the gasket material and bonds the GDL and the first gasket layer”, see [0096])(Steinbach, “In some configurations, microstructured features are embossed on the surface of the second gasket layer and/or the first gasket layer during the molding process.”, see [0096]) (The examiner interprets hot glue as a hot adhesive).
Regarding Claim 7,
Modified Steinbach teaches a fuel cell for a fuel cell stack, the fuel cell having at least one bipolar plate (Steinbach, flow field plates, 360, Fig. 3D) and a gasket in which the gasket comprises a first and a second gasket foil (Steinbach, first gasket layer, 211, Fig. 2D) (Steinbach, second gasket layer, 217, Fig. 2D) the second gasket foil having connecting recesses and bearing against the bipolar plate the gasket is bonded to the bipolar plate via (Steinbach, “In some configurations, microstructured features are embossed on the surface of the second gasket layer and/or the first gasket layer during the molding process.”, see [0096]).
Steinbach does not teach adhesive dots formed in the region of the bonding recesses by means of adhesive disposed in the bonding recesses.
Nonoyama teaches adhesive dots formed in the region of the bonding recesses by means of adhesive disposed in the bonding recesses (Nonoyama, convexes, 45, Fig. 5).
Nonoyama teaches that this convex pattern prevents the reduction of the adhesive layer, preventing non-uniform thickness (Nonoyama, “Significant reduction of the thickness of the adhesive portion may cause various problems as described below. For example, this may cause a problem that the adhesive force between the opposed surfaces and the adhesive portions is reduced. In another example, part of the adhesive portion pressed by the opposed surface may be flowed away to the periphery and may cause a problem that the thickness of the fuel cell becomes non-uniform.”, see [0004])(Nonoyama, “This configuration causes the convex to bump into the core layer and thereby suppresses the first separator or the second separator from being further pressed toward the seal member. This reduces a pressing amount of the first separator or the second separator into the adhesive layer (first adhesive layer or second adhesive layer). This configuration accordingly reduces the possibility that the thickness of a region of the adhesive layer that adheres to the separator is significantly reduced, compared with a configuration that each opposed surface does not include a convex.”, see [0006])
Steinbach and Nonoyama are analogous as they are both of the same field of fuel cell plates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the plate as taught in Steinbach to have the convex portions as taught in Nonoyama which connect directly to the core, in order to maintain the thickness of the layers and avoid the negative effects of a non-uniform configuration.
Regarding Claim 8,
Modified Steinbach teaches the fuel cell according to claim 7, characterized in that the adhesive dots have a geometric shape in which an adhesive dot side of the geometric shape runs parallel to a transverse center axis the bipolar plate and is aligned with this transverse center axis (see annotated figure below).
PNG
media_image1.png
365
571
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regrading Claim 9,
Modified Steinbach teaches the fuel cell according to claim 8, characterized in that the adhesive dots additionally have an adhesive dot side that runs parallel to a longitudinal center axis and is aligned with this longitudinal center axis (see annotated figure above)(The examiner notes that the longitudinal axis is interpreted as in and out of the image, as based on sides I and q in Fig.3 of the instant application).
Regarding Claim 10,
Modified Steinbach teaches a fuel cell stack comprising a plurality of fuel cells according to claim 7 (Steinbach, multiple cells, 360, Fig. 3E).
Regarding Claim 11,
Modified Steinbach teaches a fuel cell stack comprising a plurality of fuel cells according to claim 8 (Steinbach, multiple cells, 360, Fig. 3E).
Regarding Claim 12,
Modified Steinbach teaches a fuel cell stack comprising a plurality of fuel cells according to claim 9 (Steinbach, multiple cells, 360, Fig. 3E).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20080143061-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Steinbach’ in view of (US-20170229716-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Nonoyama’ in further view of (US-20180159160-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Okabe’
Regarding Claim 3,
Steinbach does not teach method the adhesive is a UV adhesive, so that the UV adhesive is cured by means of a UV source.
Okabe teaches the adhesive is a UV adhesive, so that the UV adhesive is cured by means of a UV source (Okabe, “As described above, the MEGA 20 and the first separator 33c are bonded to the support frame 40 by the UV adhesive B1 and the UV adhesive B2.”, see [0052]).
Okabe teaches that the use of UV adhesive allows for a shorter curing time than other adhesives (Okabe, “For this reason, for example, in comparison with the case where a thermoplastic adhesive is used instead of the UV adhesive B1 or the UV adhesive B2, a time that is required from the start of irradiation of ultraviolet light to the UV adhesive B1 or the UV adhesive B2 until the UV adhesive B1 or the UV adhesive B2 is cured is short”, see [0052]).
Steinbach and Okabe are analogous as they are both of the same field of fuel cell plates.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive as taught in Steinbach to use the UV activated adhesive, as taught in Okabe, in order to shorten the curing time of the adhesive.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (US-20080143061-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Steinbach’ in view of (US-20170229716-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Nonoyama’ in further (US-20150188155-A1) hereinafter referred to as ‘Hong’
Regarding Claim 4,
Steinbach does not teach that the gasket films are joined together by means of a laminating process.
Hong teaches the adhesive is a hot glue, so that the gasket films are joined together by means of a laminating process (Hong, “For this purpose, a solid phase film-type subgasket is generally attached to the periphery of a membrane by thermal lamination. In the subgasket lamination process, in order to improve the adhesion between the membrane and the subgasket, an adhesive may be used together with heat,”, see [0006])(The examiner notes that hot glue and a heated adhesive are interpreted as analogous).
Hong teaches that the this improves the adhesion between the parts (Hong, “For this purpose, a solid phase film-type subgasket is generally attached to the periphery of a membrane by thermal lamination. In the subgasket lamination process, in order to improve the adhesion between the membrane and the subgasket, an adhesive may be used together with heat,”, see [0006]).
Steinbach and Hong are analogous as they are both of the same field of fuel cell construction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the adhesive as taught in Steinbach to be heating lamination in order to increase the adhesion between the parts of the fuel cell plate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAMUS PATRICK MCNULTY whose telephone number is (703)756-1909. The examiner can normally be reached Monday- Friday 8:00am to 5pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Nicholas A. Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/S.P.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1752
/NICHOLAS A SMITH/Supervisory Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752